Consumers' and their supporters' perspectives on barriers and strategies to reducing seclusion and restraint in mental health settings.

Objective This paper examines the perspectives of consumers and their supporters regarding the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Methods Five focus groups for consumers and five focus groups for supporters were conducted in four Australian cities and in one rural location. The 66 participants were asked about strategies to reduce or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. Results All participants supported the reduction of the use of seclusion and restraint. Barriers to reducing these practices related to the environment, the effects of drug and alcohol issues, lack of a human rights focus and poor recognition of trauma, stigma and discrimination. Strategies for reducing or eliminating seclusion and restraint included workforce development, environmental and cultural changes. Conclusions Participants clearly identified that the status quo needs to change and conveyed urgency for action. Participants suggested that the involvement of supporters and a range of consumer roles are integral to reducing the use of seclusion and restraint. The findings support the current policy emphasis of working towards the elimination of these practices. What is known about the topic? Mental health policies across many jurisdictions support the reduction and elimination of restraint and seclusion. Evidence suggests those subjected to restraint and seclusion largely experience a range of harmful consequences. No studies focus on the views of supporters of consumers regarding the reduction and elimination of seclusion and restraint, whereas the views of consumers appear in a minority of international studies. What does this paper add? The research enabled an opportunity to hear from people who have been personally affected by and/or have lived experience of these coercive practices. Participants identified local reforms that can uphold the human rights of consumers. They suggested practices to increase accountability, peer support and family involvement, areas that have not been analysed in depth in any of the seclusion and restraint literature. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper will give healthcare services a deeper insight into how to reduce or eliminate restraint or seclusion from the perspective of those with lived experience.

Consumers and Carer perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

BACKGROUND: Seclusion and restraint are interventions currently permitted for use in mental health services to control or manage a person's behaviour. In Australia, serious concerns about the use of such seclusion and restraint have been raised at least since 1993. Consumers and their supporters have also expressed strong views about the harm of these practices. This paper presents the results of ten focus group discussions with people with lived experience of mental health issues and also carers, family members and support persons in relation to the use of seclusion and restraint. METHODS: The 30 consumers and 36 supporters participating in the focus groups convened in four Australian cities and one regional centre discussed their understandings of the use of seclusion and restraint and its impact on the people involved. Participants also presented their observations about poor practice and what contributes to it as well as providing ideas and recommendations regarding strategies to reduce or eliminate seclusion and restraint. Focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed, then analysed using the NVivo 10 qualitative data analysis software with a general inductive approach used to analyse data. This analysis enabled consideration of the responses to key questions in the focus groups as well as the identification of emerging themes. RESULTS: Six themes emerged from the analysis, these being: human rights, trauma, control, isolation, dehumanisation and 'othering', and anti-recovery. Examples of poor practice identified by focus groups included the use of excessive force, lack of empathy/paternalistic attitudes, lack of communication and interaction and a lack of alternative strategies to the use of seclusion and restraint. There was a confluence of factors identified by participants as contributing to poor practice, with the main factors being organisational culture, the physical environment, under-resourced mental health services and fear and stigma. CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants in the main viewed seclusion and restraint practices in mental health settings as unnecessarily overused, exacerbating problems for individuals, carers, staff and the broader system of care. This study highlights that lived experience of both consumers and their supporters can make an important contribution to mental health services and its ongoing reform.

Independent Loss of Methylthioadenosine Phosphorylase (MTAP) in Primary Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma.

Methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP) and the tumor suppressor genes CDKN2A-CDKN2B are frequently deleted in malignancies. The specific role of MTAP in cutaneous T-cell lymphoma subgroups, mycosis fungoides (MF) and Sézary syndrome (SS), is unknown. In 213 skin samples from patients with MF/SS, MTAP copy number loss (34%) was more frequent than CDKN2A (12%) in all cutaneous T-cell lymphoma stages using quantitative reverse transcription PCR. Importantly, in early stage MF, MTAP loss occurred independently of CDKN2A loss in 37% of samples. In peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with SS, codeletion with CDKN2A occurred in 18% of samples but loss of MTAP alone was uncommon. In CD4(+) cells from SS, reduced MTAP mRNA expression correlated with MTAP copy number loss (P < 0.01) but reduced MTAP expression was also detected in the absence of copy number loss. Deep sequencing of MTAP/CDKN2A-CDKN2B loci in 77 peripheral blood mononuclear cell DNA samples from patients with SS did not show any nonsynonymous mutations, but read-depth analysis suggested focal deletions consistent with MTAP and CDKN2A copy number loss detected with quantitative reverse transcription PCR. In a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cell line, promoter hypermethylation was shown to downregulate MTAP expression and may represent a mechanism of MTAP inactivation. In conclusion, our findings suggest that there may be selection in early stages of MF for MTAP deletion within the cutaneous tumor microenvironment.

Erratum to: Consumers and their supporters' perspectives on poor practice and the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: results from Australian focus groups.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13033-016-0038-x.].